Trump has committed numerous crimes in his life. You better be thankful he has only been convicted of this relatively mundane one.

​@@keithhoss4990And Joe committed so many crimes but lucky for you he has been found to be mentality unfit to stand trial.

Trump said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that as president he would deport all undocumented immigrants and then allow the “good ones” to reenter the country through an “expedited process” and live in the U.S. legally, though not as citizens. Trump’s immigration plan: Deport the undocumented, ‘legal status’ for some this was from a interview with CNN on July 29, 2015 what do you think this is called??? A IMMIGRATION ACT

Rfk Jr, claim your Independence!

"Impeach the President and her husband too".

I’m sure he is.

Yep. It’s the only move they have left. “I’m on it!” - Hilary Clinton

Ever seen the size of his motorcade, it is more than double Bidens Secret Service wagons, anybody would think that Trump is actually still the POTUS, I wonder if there is any relation to when he has often extolled, "We caught them folks, We CAUGHT THEM ALL!" and when Mar-a-Largo was raided they were frantically searching for any of the evidence that Trumps team has on them. How silly they must be in these times of 'Clouds' and portable hard drives and thumb drives to think Trump had the Grand Jury or Military Tribunal evidence just idylly laying about in the First Lady's undies drawer. Pervert Rat Finks!

Dude that sounds like a threat …,,

It's almost like they are trying to suggest Biden take such action!

Do you believe Obama should have been prosecuted for drone striking a US citizen? If yes then you agree with Sotomayor. Do you think that Joe Biden should be criminally prosecuted for something? If yes then you are with Sotomayor. This ruling isn't about a specific president, it was about ALL presidents whether you voted for them or not.

Obama right hand personal supreme helper

Obummer is still running the circus

I think we're at the point where everything is propaganda and almost nothing is real and all of the media and government is working against us to propagandize us heavily

Sadly there are a good # of useless Liberal assholes that tune in to them. Same with the pigs of the View.

Yes their Butch wives…..

@@TheRealJoeMama1 What about all of the family of the crew as well?

They don't 😂l😂😂p

Remember President Obama put her in the Supreme Court she's a liberal

True, but understand why she wrote that. They are scared of the JFK files being released. maybe we'll find out a dem president was involved, So they are already making it clear in the SCOTUS ruling that the said president would have immunity for it.

There are three on the Supreme Count that are controlled by these demons in both parties and she is one of them.

It is sad that she went that far!!!

Sad she is on the court. She is very amateurish. People need to understand the Supreme Court is not a legislature. The policy is an outcome of constitutionality not to shape constitutionality as an outcome of policy.

😂Good one, I had to think about it but 👍

He's doing the job. recall Trump lies non stop, sells Pardons to felons, is a felon, is stealing money out of your wallet right now and you don't even realize it.

Reminds me of Reagan in that way

Obama is telling them what to do

You guys are so gullible! You'll believe whales speak French at the bottom of the ocean if the right person told you!😅

Yeah like during the 2020 election 😂😅

Well, that discredited my theory that she actually shows up on a camera.

You know for a while that someone being an idiot doesn't make them ugly and in Joy's case, she looks decent but she is still crap! I'm giving your stupid comment thumbs down!

I know right ?!🤪🤪

I still remember her when Russia collusion was debunked as hoax.

randy madcow

She hasn't had time to shave down the apple lately.

ikr..

Raymond Madcow is really Comrade Colbert ... in drag.

Sotomayor is a diversity hire. She checked boxes.

I had no idea that she was that dumb. 😮

She Bein paid realllllllll good to act that ignorant 😂

She’s there for life !

a typical bias Democrat.

Another DEI hiring? Justice Sotomayor graduated Cum Laude from Princeton and then graduated from Yale. She has been a judge since the early nineties and was first nominated by President Bush. She is far more qualified than other Supreme Court Justices. What’s eating you up is that she’s Hispanic and a women and has reached the peak of her profession.

That's why we are voting for Trump!

The flying car folk?

Yep, and that's why I'll be voting for Trump.

And has been for fifty yrs.

This ruling will work for for Joe in the future then the Democrats will be like giddy school girls.

The marionette strings tore during the debate, that's why he went limp and crashed. They hooked them back up for that teleprompter speech right after that, so he actually looked alive...half alive...concious..

😂😂😂😂 right, well said

It’s all there for everyone to see

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. ❤❤❤

Exactly 💯

False, the office of the president has never held an immunity from CRIMINAL prosecution. The office of the president has had an immunity from CIVIL prosecution due to a supreme court ruling in a civil case brought against Nixon. There has never been any office or position in the United States of America that has ever been immune from CRIMINAL prosecution. As wrote Alexander Hamilton in the 69th federalist paper: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon no worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware."

​@@dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?

@@dbob132 ​ @dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. The entire 22 pages of the decision are replete with the distinction between _official_ and _non-official_ acts - not _civil_ versus _criminal_ charges. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?

@@dbob132 ​ @dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?

​ @dbob132 So, as I said, the decision does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, it merely upholds EXISTING immunity. Did you even read the decision? Furthermore, the debate here doesn't rest on civil versus criminal immunity. It rests on immunity in cases of official versus non-official acts. From the decision, quote: "The District Court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts." _"HELD:_ Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5-43." "(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress, either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one, may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6-9." "(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view." Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues. Pp. 16-32." "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President." (Reminder, people were protesting on J6 because DEMOCRATS were suspiciously and conspicuously trying to steal the election with fraudulent votes. It wasn't votes stolen for Trump, it was votes stolen for Biden) Justice Jackson wrote, "and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the certification proceeding.” Oh really? Trump "directed them...TO OBSTRUCT... the proceeding." When did Trump do that? When did Trump "direct" them "to obstruct" ? Justice Jackson also wrote, quote: "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient." So, as I said, the Court does not imbue the office with any NEW immunity, rather it merely upholds existing immunity. Please point to the part in the decision that contains new-found immunity. Also, let's not forget that the 3 dissenting justices FAILED to show the immunity does not exist. They use _alleged_ conduct to premise their conclusions and unless and until that "alleged" conduct is proven, how about we don't draw conclusions about it?

She set Joe up ... to fail

She still is sticking with 'he had a cold and a bad night.' And she stands by her cheap fakes accusation.

That is what she is paid to do.

​@@sonialelii9038He got over that cold quickly. The next day he was amped up.

She won’t have a job come Jan

So then you agree with Sotomayor, that if a President commits an act of treason they should be criminally prosecuted

All those Biden crimes and yet the Republicans still can’t produce a shred of evidence against Joe Biden despite years of investigations.

It tells you how all consuming their thoughts and existence are to evil. They're butchering "words."

AND YET NONE OF THEIR CHILDISH LYING RHETORIC WILL SAVE THEM.. THE EVIDENCE OF TREASON WILL NOT BE DENIED....

Truth

It's always the rich, a attack on democracy means attack on their wealth. They will be taxed unlike what joe did, joe is for the rich.

Fire Marshal Brandon 😂

After Trump takes over in January. Maybe she’ll retire after the election in protest?

Thomas and kavanough should be removed. Corrupt and and a sexual abuser.

@@lifarasad8931 Translation: u don't like conservatives on the court. Sorry but that's not an impeachable offense.

I found the Cult rabbit hole. F OFF Bitches!

@@noahhyde8769 They are not conservatives. We left the party in 2016.

Typically there is an extremely high bar when it comes to threats against the president. See Watts v. United States as an example

@@dbob132 For conviction, but talking can result in a visit from the Secret Service to clear things up. And to scare the crap out of stupid people.

@@dbob132This was the most insightful comment I’ve read all day. Also, I spent way too many hours reading comments online today 😂

@bite-sizedshorts9635: During a public speech, Madonna stated how she wants to blow up the White House; Kathy Griffin posted an ISIS-style picture of her holding the decapitated head of the President. Both of these TDS-afflicted folks were investigated by the Secret Service. Griffin was put on the international No Fly List for a while.

The Republican majority Senate Intelligence Committee stated that a number of Trump’s campaign team DID collude with the Russians. The Mueller report said the same thing. They couldn’t prove Trump himself colluded. Trump is far too smart to make such a rookie mistake when he has minions to take all the risk and consequences.

It's obamma

RUSHIN BOT ON LITERALLY EVERY FOX POST although gop is just their american military branch

Why are you asking us? Hunting for those likes, eh?

​@@derjoh1986no need to hunt, lol

​​@@marco477utepHave you noticed NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR CONSPIRACY.

To him it was wonderful. To us it was horrific....

Um, horrific career🤨

From day 1. Whatever you think about environment issues, it was an insult to American taxpayers to shut down the pipeline after we already paid for it. Nonsense

He's a political toxic waste dump.... from JUMP!

50 years of Grift, deceit, incompetence and corruption 😢

Too old to stand a trial Too💩for G7🤣🤣🤣 He is not a Pres 😂

I must say that I was actually quite impressed when watching Biden at his press conference today. I thought that the funeral home did a very good job of preparing him for a final viewing and made him appear much more lifelike than even his harshest critics could possibly have imagined!

Remember student loans.

Never before has the court had to step in as many times as they have in the last 3 1/2 years to rule what the president is doing is illegal/ unconstitutional

@@nobodyspecial115 LOL can you list them?

Inciting comments alright

But..but…she’s such a WISE Latina. 🤮

Truth ❤

Her evil will be shown to America

She really showed her true nasty colors. That is another obama failure that cannot be forgiven. If only they could be fired- lifetime job is ridiculous. No one else has that. They should not either.

Hypotheticals are not, in any way shape or form, irregular in law. Hypotheticals are asked to determine the magnitude and scope of a legal ruling. If the hypothetical asked cannot be rectified then that should necessitate a reevaluation of the ruling. This is also not a critical legal issue, the president should not be immune from criminal prosecution, no one should, and no one was until this ruling. It is unamerican to have someone above the law, it goes against the constitution which states that the president can be tried in a criminal court, it goes against what the founding father believed as they stated in the federalist papers that the president should be able to be tried in a criminal court of law, and it goes against previous rulings by the supreme court that the president can be held accountable in a criminal case. The president is not better than you, the president is not better than me, the president is better than no one and should not be afforded a right to abuse the rules that the rest of us follow

​@@dbob132 Just that she directed it towards a former president running for office

They should be above this sort of behavior

@@i.marchand4655 absolutely agree with you 👍🇺🇸🇺🇸

Absolutely should be a requirement!🎉

Amen!😉

I like my vegetable raw not cooked till mush 😂😂

😂🤣

DON'T EAT CRACKERS 😂🎉

😅😅😅😅

Cute.

She doesn't even know as much actual law as she should.

Prove that statement of yours!

@@bite-sizedshorts9635 Really??? She’s been nominated by 3 presidents. Bush, Clinton and Obama and 3 diffent Congresses.She graduated top of her class at Princeton and Yale and has been a judge for 30 years. But if you say she’s incompetent then I guess she’s incompetent

That's legal Presidence(?)

@@RM-lk1so His comment isn't even valid, let alone precedence!

Joyless

why do you look like you do? you must really hate yourself.

She's not alone...

It should buy some hair from Temu.

😂 she took it personal when everyone kept saying she had a Trump hairdo 😂

Ever since they impeached Trump for what Biden did.

Now? It's rules for radicals, their bible. Obama was the first to really follow it and now it's Bid...... Never mind it's still Obama.

Professionally known as _"Narcissistic Projection"._ That's been the tactic of Leftys for decades. Mostly because they ARE Narcs! As was Alinsky; the author of their guide book. We're dealing with extremely Toxic People here!

It has been for a long time

@@jessietucker9342 YTCCP deleted my comment.🤷

But the deadline for changing ballots has passed in a number of states. No matter what the DNC does, Biden will still be the candidate in those states. So changing horses will guarantee a loss.

Fortunately I can't afford cable

Just ignorance

People who only watch TV haven't seen what the rest of us have.

People who just watch TV didn't see what the rest of us saw. If Biden made a mistake on TV, that piece of video would never be shown again. We have compilations of dozens of instances of Biden crap, including actually crapping. :)

Hillary isn't immune from prosecution in the US. Her crimes have been done 1) not while acting as President, 2) not as part of the duty of the President, and 3) she's never been President. Thus, Presidential Immunity cannot apply, even if she somehow becomes POTUS; at most, any prosecution can be delayed until after her term. (I hope she never gets put in a position of power again.)

Exactly

Trump is known for his 34 felony convictions

The Supreme Court just gave king Joe Biden immunity for official acts.

He's finished, there's no coming back from this.

Joey has learned how to lie very well since he has been a politician for 50 worthless years. Go Trump 2024 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

C

Like Obama did.

Joyless Reid..

Especially when one remembers it was Obama who killed an American citizen in a drone attack without due process of law. And of course the current Dems are the only ones who have unethically gone after their political opponents with extreme distortions of how the laws are normally applied. Apparently they assume everyone else is as crooked as they are and become afraid.

They are supposed to be unbiased.

I think the word you are looking for is "objective" like the media is also supposed to be.

Exactly. We are seeing the most recent Trump nominated Justice Barret leaning center, and newcomer Biden nominated Justice Jackson occasionally leaning center as well, surprisingly. But Sotomayor is always as far left as can be and man does she say the dumbest things. Remember when she thought over 100,000 American children were dying on ventilators during the cove? Even the Washington Post was reporting on how out there she is. The other justices must hate the fact they're stuck voting with such a painfully stupid human being. And of course she's a Obama nominee, the man we have to thank for starting this whole W O K E downfall of America to begin with.

This is disgusting. You have no idea what you're talking about. So disgusting.

Wow! So sick. This is what fox does. I'm blown away. Such cruelty.

They would take out their own to further their hold on Power. Put nothing past the side that chose anarchy because DJT won the Presidency.

Same here! If they do, it WILL be the flashpoint of the next rev 0h Lou shun.🤷

They are the dissenting opinion, meaning they disagree. That is the entire point of dissenting. They are bringing up the fact that assassinating a rival is possible to showcase the implications of the conservative justices' decision. That is the entire point of disagreeing, that they do not want something to happen, how do you not understand this?

@@dbob132 Nope. They are bringing up something that would still be illegal. But there are other things they want to do that the decision would allow. How do you not understand that?

Doe 174 Dole 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174 Doe 174

No, we ain,t democrats. Seal team stand down.

The military rank and file are only required to follow legal orders . . . . but post-Millie and 16 years if gutting the ranks, who knows . . . . .

@@Lightning613 But how do you know if it is a legal order if the courts are forbidden to rule on the order's legality? That is the entire point

Y put an idiot on the screen ,y r we interested on what that mutt thinks ,because she doesn't think .

😂😂have you forgotten, according to them, only white people can be guilty of cultural appropriation.

They/them.

Repulsive Reid ... Blah, blah, blah. Trump, Trump, Trump, race, race, race, rah, rah, rah ... Another rich and whinging DEI victim.

Don't watch those scenes at night if you want to have a peaceful sleep. LOL!!!!

RIGHT??!! I SURPRISED THAT POOR CAMERA SURVIVED THAT 😅

POOR UNCLE TOUCHY FEELY HAD BEEN DOING THAT SINCE HE ",STOLE" THE LAST ELECTION

😂😅😂

​@@VuongNguyen-cg6yo😂😅😂

Seriously, it's very revealing and scary that he keeps bringing up that ☝️🤔🤫

Funny, Obama used the military to specifically assassinate a US Citizen who was not charged with any crime. Sounds like Obama should be in jail for life, according to Joy.

Biden is a wannabe mafia thug dictator!

The third term president not only threatened to do it, but actually did it with a drone strike.

Obarry did as well, but no one called him on it. Joe's his marionette. I'm certain that F15 remark began in Obarry's mouth.

If you don't want Seal Team 6 to be ordered by a President of the United States to assassinate people, then you agree with Sotomayor

That's throwing away your vote. You would be better off voting for Trump. He is the best candidate we've had in decades.

Yep. Why are Biden, and the media operatives talking about assassination?

"Hypocrisy"

Civil and criminal trials are very different in the US. The primary difference focuses on the burden of proof which for criminal trials is beyond a reasonable doubt (the highest legal standard) but for civil trials is a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not). The supreme court threw out the civil case brought against Nixon due to the lower barrier of entry faced against civil cases combined with the possible "chilling effect" those cases could have. Criminal cases do not suffer from this, since the requirement to begin a criminal case is a higher standard (depending on case/court) than to begin a civil case. Finally, Sotomayor and AOC are both not immune in criminal prosecution, even the debate clause does not protect AOC from criminal prosecution.

Thanks Perry Mason. That's why I said "sue" i.e. civil not criminal.

The Supreme Court passed a law years ago that stated that no judge can be sued by a defendant .

@@Struieboy So you're saying that Trump isn't the only person "above the law'?

@@opinion8ed No one is above the law including Trump and Biden. A judge can be charged with corruption or any other crime but they can’t be sued by a defendant. Otherwise every convicted criminal would sue their judge. If a defendant believes the judge committed judicial misconduct he can appeal to the Appeal Courts .

😂

Dennis Rodman

I was wondering about the white guy. Looks like C Hunters crooked mouth face but the lack of facial hair threw me!

Harambe.

I believe the taunts about her culturally miappropriating the blond white woman image finally got to her, so now what she's left with is grey stubble.

You better read Project 2025 fool.

I hold all of that power! And my party is The United UTOPIAN Party!!

Only I can actually Unite the United States!

​@@dannyburleigh1then run for political office

That won't do it. Most of the Republicans in Congress are just as bad as the Democrats. Most incumbents of both parties need to be replaced with real conservatives.

Joy says POTUS could use drones to assassinate Americans overseas? Doesn’t she realize did that? And was not even impeached.

I feel your pain ~ I've just had something to eat .....!! 🤢🤢🤢 🤮

How about just ‘never go on camera’?

😂😂😂

I was wondering who that old blk man was.

It gets zero reception. But it will still work with an Atari 2600. I know because I have the TV and the game, also a stack of cartridges.

I could not care less about the old MFer. He showered with his teenage daughter!!! She waited until late at night to bathe to avoid his sexual abuse. AND Jill ignored it.

PREACH IT 🙏

Why not blame the entire Democratic Party for elder abuse not just Jill.

​@@katielyles4657 What the HELL Joy Reid, Rachel. Maddow. Paranoia of the left because of their own guilt.

@katielyles4657 yes they're all guilty of it... but she has the power to stop it...she told Obama that she will not let him step down!

You also destroyed the country and gave us the three worst presidents in human history. Carter, Trump, and Biden.

And unlike them, you destroyed the country

It's hard to find a pen with any ink left in it.

‘Your mama”. 😂😂Remember when those were fighting words?

Yep their no match for GEN X either

Seems plausable.

@@user-ns8dq6ui5s I am glad you recognize how Trump didn’t know anything about his WH.

@@Tamara61622 What a stupid way to dialogue.

Just like a true Lefty lie lie lie

@@user-ns8dq6ui5s Please name one lie?

Demonrat

The nearer you get to the target, the more flak.

Cause trump is their BIG O that they can't achieve 😂😂😂

I think it's called deflection.

​@@kennethpriestman4255and projection

@@harrison390 You mean whining. You misspelled

I tried translating this comment but it comes out the same

​@@kennethpriestman4255and the feelings of most Americans

Short bus has to repeat things I see

@@kennethpriestman4255 Let me help. “Chinga Jose Biden!”

Can you prove they lied ?

@@BigHunt206 that is not what I asked, it was a simple question.

No. Also they can’t be removed for accepting millions of dollars of vacations, school fees and private jet flights from a conservative Oligarch.

@@katielyles4657 Ok no, unless you can prove they lied and the lie affected the outcome.

Ww3 will stop any election but wish for a peaceful power change

They're the only ones bringing that up, an remember all they do is project

Exactly 💯 ​@@nobodyspecial115

Whatever they accuse their opponents of doing, they are either doing or planning on doing themselves.

Barry